Optical Satellite-Derived Bathymetry: An Overview and WoS and Scopus Bibliometric Analysis
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I appreciate the work that the authors have done. The bibliometric analysis is the beginning point of any study, and the correct approach to this issue is the main advantage of the considered paper.
There are some remarks and suggestions.
1. I would point out the database names in the title as far as the analysis did not embrace the whole set of publications worldwide.
2. Table 1. How do you differentiate the accuracy by low, high, etc? The absolute accuracy for different depth ranges is not informative.
3. There are some repetitions, e.g.: page 4, row 142, Dickens [23]..., row 149.
Author Response
Reviewer 1
C&S: I appreciate the work that the authors have done. The bibliometric analysis is the beginning point of any study, and the correct approach to this issue is the main advantage of the considered paper.
There are some remarks and suggestions.
Point 1: I would point out the database names in the title as far as the analysis did not embrace the whole set of publications worldwide.
Response 1: Accepted. The title is changed “Optical Satellite Derived Bathymetry: An Overview and WoS and Scopus Bibliometric Analysis”
Point 2: Table 1. How do you differentiate the accuracy by low, high, etc? The absolute accuracy for different depth ranges is not informative.
Response 2: The accuracy of individual methods was taken from [3] and [20] (it is given comparatively in these articles, because it depends on the resolution of the satellite data), while the accuracy of the optically empirical method was taken from [Casal et al., 2020].
Point 3: There are some repetitions, e.g.: page 4, row 142, Dickens [23]..., row 149.
Response 3: Accepted. Sentence “Dickens [23] lists new methods, namely, statistical physics and machine learning (ML).” is deleted (now rows 151-152).
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript provides a summary of optical SDB by bibliometric analysis. It is interesting to learn about SDB from this aspect. However, it is incomprehensible that there are only short paragraphs about SDB approach and accuracy, while the gap between SDB result and IHO standards is emphasized. In order to improve the writing and understanding of the article, I request your attention to the following questions:
1. Line 74: As stated in lines 99 and 100, “image spatial resolutions are from 0.3 ( WorldView 3 & 4) to 30 m (Landsat 8 & 9) or 10 m (Sentinel 2).” Why is the image spatial resolution range here 2 m to 15 m? How comes the 15 m?
2. SAR SDB and Altimeter SDB are also mentioned in the introduction. But when it comes to the SDB cost, only the cost of optical SDB is actually analyzed. A description of the main scope of this manuscript should be added, or the cost should be comprehensively analyzed. Besides, radar altimetry and SAR are presented again in Table 1, which are not part of optical SDB.
3. Table 2: It is not appropriate that a quite classic model proposed by Stumpf et al. (2003) isn’t presented here. In fact, lots of researches have applied the band-ratio approach for comparison, and that’s why the article is one of the most cited publications. In addition, the summary of the table is too simply, and some characters and abbreviations are not explained.
4. Line 255-256: Some quotation marks need to be added.
5. Line 295: It should be “less than 30 articles”, otherwise it would be inconsistent with Figure 5 and 6.
6. Section 3.3: Because normally the corresponding author is the head of the research team, it is recommended to analyze the corresponding authors rather than all the authors. And it can be more representative.
7. Table 6: Some of the abbreviations below the table are unnecessary.
8. Figure 13: Does the orange part mean the number of citation? Maybe an axis of the number of citations is missing. The last sentence above the figure is a little confusing. China seems to follow the USA with not that much difference.
9. Figure 14: The lines are not clear enough to figure out the starting and ending positions. And it seems like to be red rather than brown.
10. Line 473: The sentence should end with a period.
11. The information in the references should be complete. Also, some information of the same reference can’t match up (e.g. reference 18).
Author Response
Reviewer 2
C&S: The manuscript provides a summary of optical SDB by bibliometric analysis. It is interesting to learn about SDB from this aspect. However, it is incomprehensible that there are only short paragraphs about SDB approach and accuracy, while the gap between SDB result and IHO standards is emphasized. In order to improve the writing and understanding of the article, I request your attention to the following questions:
Point 1: Line 74: As stated in lines 99 and 100, “image spatial resolutions are from 0.3 ( WorldView 3 & 4) to 30 m (Landsat 8 & 9) or 10 m (Sentinel 2).” Why is the image spatial resolution range here 2 m to 15 m? How comes the 15 m?
Response 1: Accepted. Line 74 is changed “from 1 m to 30 m” (now line 75).
Point 2: SAR SDB and Altimeter SDB are also mentioned in the introduction. But when it comes to the SDB cost, only the cost of optical SDB is actually analyzed. A description of the main scope of this manuscript should be added, or the cost should be comprehensively analyzed. Besides, radar altimetry and SAR are presented again in Table 1, which are not part of optical SDB.
Response 2: Accepted. The sentence is added: “The cost of SAR and SDB altimetry methods depends on the cost of satellite data, which can be free (Sentinel 1) or commercial.” (lines 100 and 101). Furthermore, the sentence is added: “It should be pointed out that Table 1 shows the radar altimetry and SAR methods (although this is not the main goal of this article) for comparison with the optical SDB method" (lines 144 to 146).
Point 3: Table 2: It is not appropriate that a quite classic model proposed by Stumpf et al. (2003) isn’t presented here. In fact, lots of researches have applied the band-ratio approach for comparison, and that’s why the article is one of the most cited publications. In addition, the summary of the table is too simply, and some characters and abbreviations are not explained.
Response 3: Not accepted. The Table 2 has been taken over (as stated in the text) as a compilation of articles by 3 authors, so we did not change it. None of those 3 authors mentioned Stumpf et al. (2003).
Point 4: Line 255-256: Some quotation marks need to be added.
Response 4: Explanation. The quotation marks in Boolean algebra are there because we targeted some key articles, for example Lyzenga's article (the term satellite derived bathymetry did not exist at that time), which we think is very valuable, and no arrangement of keywords gave us a good result. We spent a lot of time to include the most relevant articles without overloading the set with irrelevant articles (evident from the Advanced Search Query Builder topic keywords).
Point 5: Line 295: It should be “less than 30 articles”, otherwise it would be inconsistent with Figure 5 and
Response 5: Accepted. Now line 303.
Point 6: Section 3.3: Because normally the corresponding author is the head of the research team, it is recommended to analyze the corresponding authors rather than all the authors. And it can be more representative.
Response 6: Accepted. See lines 366 and 368 (Figure 10).
Point 7: Table 6: Some of the abbreviations below the table are unnecessary.
Response 7: Accepted. See line 419 below Table 6.
Point 8: Figure 13: Does the orange part mean the number of citation? Maybe an axis of the number of citations is missing. The last sentence above the figure is a little confusing. China seems to follow the USA with not that much difference.
Response 8: Accepted. We have changed the text (lines 424-427) and Figure 13.
Point 9: Figure 14: The lines are not clear enough to figure out the starting and ending positions. And it seems like to be red rather than brown.
Response 9: Accepted. A new Figure 14 is drawn and now caption is clear.
Point 10: Line 473: The sentence should end with a period.
Response 10: Accepted. See line 485.
Point 11: The information in the references should be complete. Also, some information of the same reference can’t match up (e.g. reference 18).
Response 11: Accepted. Roh, J. Y., Shin, M. S., Suh, Y. C., Yang, I. T., & Lee, D. H. (2017). Evaluation of Nautical Chart Adequacy in the Coastal Area around Incheon Bay using Satellite Imagery with AIS Data. Journal of Coastal Research, 79, 319–323. doi:10.2112/si79-065.1
Reviewer 3 Report
Manuscript summaries bibliographic records on bathymetry research using “bibliometric analysis” as a methodology. In fact manuscript only provides a percentage analysis. Additionally, the structure of the manuscript is confusing. Please reorganize manuscript and improve the structure. Some editing for English style is required throughout the manuscript due to too many mistakes. More work with the manuscript is needed.
Comments:
Table 1 contains radar methods. So, why the section 2.1 is named “passive remote sensing”? Please clarify.
I would suggest checking language style, e.g.: in the Table 1 I found the word “expensive” which should be replaced with “high cost”.
Line 175 – Language style should be improved.
Lines 193 – 196 –The paragraph should be placed at the beginning of the section.
Lines 205 – 206 – “easier monitoring”? The term sounds bizarre. Please improve the language style to be an academic one.
Sections 2.2; 2.3 and 2.3.1. look not well structured. Please improve the structure of the manuscript.
Figure 3 is not found in the section 2.2. as referenced. Please correct the structure.
Sections 2 – 2.3.1 (2.3.1 is double?) are not synchronized with the sections 3 – 3.5. Manuscript is unclear. Please reorganized manuscript.
Line 276 – The search term “document” is not described clearly. Please clarify.
Line 345 – The style is sloppy. Please improve the style.
E.g. figures 4, 8, 9, 10, 17 – Please check the captions and provide a comprehensive explanations.
Figure 14 – Caption is absolutely unclear. Please improve.
Line 528 – You should never begin a sentence with a numeral. If you cannot reword the sentence, spell out the numbers.
Author Response
Reviewer 3
C&S: Manuscript summaries bibliographic records on bathymetry research using “bibliometric analysis” as a methodology. In fact manuscript only provides a percentage analysis. Additionally, the structure of the manuscript is confusing. Please reorganize manuscript and improve the structure. Some editing for English style is required throughout the manuscript due to too many mistakes. More work with the manuscript is needed.
Editing for English style is performed by MDPI service. Accepted.
Comments:
Point 1: Table 1 contains radar methods. So, why the section 2.1 is named “passive remote sensing”? Please clarify.
I would suggest checking language style, e.g.: in the Table 1 I found the word “expensive” which should be replaced with “high cost”.
Response 1: Accepted. The sentence is added: “It should be pointed out that Table 1 shows the radar altimetry and SAR methods (although this is not the main goal of this article) for comparison with the optical SDB method" (lines 143 to 145). Language style in the Table 1 is corrected, the word “expensive” is replaced with “high cost”.
Point 2: Line 175 – Language style should be improved.
Response 2: Accepted. The sentence: “The statistical or empirical method adjusts satellite data to measured data” is delited and replaced with the sentence: “The statistical or empirical method (Figure 2) for determining depths requires knowledge of the measured depths in order to evaluate the method itself” (lines 185-186).
Point 3: Lines 193 – 196 –The paragraph should be placed at the beginning of the section.
Response 3: Accepted.
Point 4: Lines 205 – 206 – “easier monitoring”? The term sounds bizarre. Please improve the language style to be an academic one.
Response 4: Accepted. The term “easier monitoring” is replaced with the term “examination” (line 212).
Point 5: Sections 2.2; 2.3 and 2.3.1. look not well structured. Please improve the structure of the manuscript.
Response 5: Accepted. We changed the structure in: 2.2 Bibliometric analysis; 2.3 Bibliometric analysis of the SDB literature; 2.3.1 Bibliographic database; 2.3.2 Defining Search Criteria.
Point 6: Figure 3 is not found in the section 2.2. as referenced. Please correct the structure
Response 6: Accepted.
Point 7: Sections 2 – 2.3.1 (2.3.1 is double?) are not synchronized with the sections 3 – 3.5. Manuscript is unclear. Please reorganized manuscript.
Response 7: We changed the structure for section 2 (see Response 5). In sections 3-3.5 we organized results of the bibliometric analysis of the SDB method according to the main features of Biblioshiny software (applied on WOS and Scopus databases) and defined search criteria (section 2.4). So we believe that sections 3- 3.5 are not unclear.
Point 8: Line 276 – The search term “document” is not described clearly. Please clarify.
Response 8: Accepted. The sentence “It should be noted that the term "document" is used since the Biblioshiny software uses that term” is added (lines 281-282).
Point 9: Line 345 – The style is sloppy. Please improve the style. E.g. figures 4, 8, 9, 10, 17 – Please check the captions and provide a comprehensive explanation.
Response 9: Accepted. The sentence:” Looking at the production over time of the above affiliations, the significant growth started at the year 2014” is deleted and the sentence: “Considering the number of affiliations that have published articles dealing with optical SDB over time, it can be concluded that significant growth begins in 2014 (Figure 9)” is added (lines 353-355).
Captions of Figures 4, 8, 9, 10, 17 have been changed. Accepted.
Point 10: Figure 14 – Caption is absolutely unclear. Please improve.
Response 10: Accepted. A new Figure 14 is drawn and now caption is clear.
Point 11: Line 528 – You should never begin a sentence with a numeral. If you cannot reword the sentence, spell out the numbers.
Response 11: Accepted. The sentence is changed: “In the SDB topic research 2024 authors took part and provided a total of 24,476 references” (lines 542-543).
